Thoughts from the interface of science, religion, law and culture

After spending several years touring the country as a stand up comedian, Ed Brayton tired of explaining his jokes to small groups of dazed illiterates and turned to writing as the most common outlet for the voices in his head. He has appeared on the Rachel Maddow Show and the Thom Hartmann Show, and is almost certain that he is the only person ever to make fun of Chuck Norris on C-SPAN.

EVENTS

Barton: Hate is a Virtue, Tolerance a Sin

David Barton says he’s thinking about writing a book that takes the position that hate is a virtue, at least when it is applied to the things that God disapproves of, and tolerance is a sin if it means tolerating something that God is opposed to.

I wrote this down recently and I’m thinking about it as a name for a book; if not the name for a book, this is definitely something that we have to at least get in our thinking. So let me throw out the thought that I had here, this is just throwing out the title for a book:

When tolerance is a sin and hate is a virtue.

I throw that out because we’re getting to the point where tolerance is a bad thing and hate is a good thing. And let me define that: we’re told in, I believe it’s Proverbs 4:13, it says “the fear of the Lord is to hate evil.” Which means that if I’m going to stand for what God stands for, there’s some certain things I have to hate: I have to hate evil, I have to hate murder – well no, you can’t hate, that’s a bad thing … no, hate is a good thing!

I mean hating Nazis, that’s a good thing. And people say “well, you hate their philosophy, you don’t hate the people.” No, I hate people who want to kill other people and I’m sorry that they’re killing others but the guys who were on the Nazi trials at the end, I’m sorry, I just hate what they did. Alright, I love them as a person, yes Jesus died for them, I understand, but I hate certain things.

So we’ve got to get to the point where tolerance is seen as a sin because we’re tolerating a lot stuff that destroys our families, that destroys our own character and we can’t tolerate that stuff. We have to get back to the point where hate is a virtue, at least certain kinds of hate. The fear of the Lord is to hate evil and we need to have a hatred of things and get off this fence of having no passion about anything. You know, I tolerate anything, I’m not going to have a passion good or bad, I’m not going to hate anything … We just can’t do that and we’ve got to get back to that same type of intolerance, that we’re going to be intolerant of liberalism.

I actually think he’s got a point, though he has the wrong target. I have no problem with hating those who murder and rape and do horrible things (and please don’t give me this mealy-mouthed, new agey “I don’t hate anyone, I just strongly dislike them” — as though that says anything meaningful at all). The problem is that Barton hates all the wrong things. He hates gay people because the Bible tells him that being gay is an “abomination.” And he acts accordingly

And I’m greatly amused by this claim that “we’re tolerating a lot of stuff that destroys our families.” Really? Then why is your family not destroyed? According to Barton, that “stuff” includes the Supreme Court banning mandatory prayer in schools in 1962 and it’s been going on ever since. 50 years worth of stuff that allegedly “destroys our families.” There should be no families left after two generations of such hyperbole.

Hate is always a characteristic of Right Wing Authoritarians. I’ll give him his, at least Barton is honest about his hate. Most so called Christian fundies pretend they are all about love. You know it’s love to hate homosexuality because “those people” are trapped in that lifestyle because they are controlled by demons. At least that’s one argument I’ve seen the fundies make.

I noticed that hate = fundie-ism myself. But so have a lot of people. Mencken said it a century ago. Spong talks about it in his books, having been the recipient of “16 death threats” from his co-religionists.

It’s just tribalism. They didn’t invent it.

It is also biblical. The early part of the bible is the Jews (mytholigically) genociding the Canaanites and taking their land, women, and stuff. Because they deserved to be killed.

Payback was severe. The Jews were then overrun by the Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, Greeks, Romans, kicked out of Palestine, and finally met the Germans.

A constant theme in the bible is hate for the other tribes, the Ammonites, Canaanites, Moabites, Edomites, Aramites, Assyrians, Babylonians, Greeks, Samaritans, Philistines, Romans. etc.. If they ever met another people they got along with, I don’t remember it.

This ties in with your post yesterday about CBN’s “exposé” about the Liberal/Muslim conspiracy. There’s no multipartite world, no Sino-Soviet split, just a dipole: an Us to laud and protect, and a Them to hate. That two groups of Thems might not like each other never enters their mind.

I have a very hard time hating anyone. I have no problem despising most liars, including David Barton.

I’d like to see someone interview Mr. Barton, repeat a litany of his unrepentant lies about the framers coupled to citations proving he lied about them, and then ask him whether Christians have a duty to God to hate him. That Christians should hate him for bearing false witness against others since according to him, God hates liars*.

The only honest way for him to attempt to weasel out of his own framework is for him to argue that bearing false witness against others doesn’t sink to evil. Of course Mr. Barton has continually demonstrated no fealty to honesty so I wouldn’t expect him to use this defense. That’s the problem with liars and why we should always condemn them and seek to ostracize them, even if they told the truth about one matter, they’re still not trustworthy; therefore they’ve earned our ignoring any consideration they seek from others about any matter.

*This is framed around Barton’s own framing of of inerrant Bible that is also God’s word. My framing here is possibly disingenuous by categorizing dishonesty with evil where Barton didn’t technically do that, though one could argue he did in the statements Ed quotes here. That’s because he seems to be equating behavior God condemns as evil where the Bible does have passages prohibiting dishonesty.

@ raven, there was that one tribe that asked the Israelis to be friends and swap sons and daughters in marriage. Initially they said no, but then agreed — with the stipulation that the other tribe get their foreskins whacked off.
Then, when the other tribe’s men were incapacitated from the procedure the Israelis slaughtered them.
Oh, wait …

Your premise doesn’t match the evidence in its totality, not even close. Mr. Barton distinguishes himself in his misrepresentation of the Bible, e.g., his demonstrated cafeteria Christianity here, and elsewhere – his claims certain biblical passages reconcile to passages in the U.S. Constitution; where he also continually lies about the latter as well.

This seems very similar to the lines attributed to Goldwater: “Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.”
In my opinion, just about the most dangerous way of thinking there is. We also see it in the current refusal to compromise on the part of the extreme right wing in Congress.
I also like the reference in # 1 to George Orwell, who saw through this kind of language better than most.

I don’t think hate is inherently evil. It’s natural to hate murderers, oppressors, and other evildoers. The problem comes from losing control of your hate and from directing that hate to innocents who just happen to have some trait in common with the original target. Tolerance and mercy are virtues that keep hate more reasonable, under control, and proportional. Fundies didn’t get that memo. Besides, they seem to lack a moral compass to understand good from evil, anyway.

Sooooo….Crush your enemies, see them driven before and hear the lamentation of their women?*

I mean sure, that’s what’s best in life, but Barton would think it’s also virtous?

I admit to a lack of understanding of the mindset of these people, we don’t have that many here in little Denmark, and those we do have usually stick to themselves. But from what little I do understand, and what little I know (or think I know) of this man, he seems to be moving towards a more “fire and brimstone” kind of christian.

Calling someone evil and then hating them can be an excuse for inaction, or refusing to take a necessary action.

Case in point: Adam Lanza. There is no doubting that what he did was an evil act, but was he evil? Would he have been evil if there had been no assault weapons in his home with which he committed mass murder, or would he have still just been the young, disaffected mentally disturbed teenager he was before?

Writing Lanza off as evil is an easy excuse not to tackle difficult issues including gun control and care for the mentally ill. But then, right-wing conservatives love to view the world in black and white.

The article mentions the target audience for Bryan’s demagoguery, which seems the same as the target audience for David Barton’s lies, and the target audience for the execrable movie Expelled – “he preferred the company of rustic ignoramuses.”

Hmph. This is merely recycled Randall Terry of Operation Rescue, (in)famous for saying, “I want you to just let a wave of intolerance wash over you. I want you to let a wave of hatred wash over you. Yes, hate is good.” Barton is late to the Christian cotillion in this respect. And Greg Gutfield, whose role on Fox News is to make his colleagues look like decent human beings by comparison, has already written The Joy of Hate (which I was disgusted to discover on my parents’ bookshelf on Xmas Day). Barton should stick to his specialty, which is fake history.

Wasn’t it one of Jesus’s basic tenets to love and show compassion for the people who you disagree with and do you injustice?

David Barton is a biblical inerrantist who also subscribes to the incoherent idea of a godly trinity. From this perspective there are ample passages in the Bible which has God, and therefore Jesus, promoting hate and violence for those with whom we disagree, including the character of Jesus himself in this passages:

34 “Do not think that I have come to bring peace on earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; 36 and a man’s foes will be those of his own household. 37 He who loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; and he who loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; 38

And of course Jesus/God promises violence and evil beyond that possible from an human – eternal punishment to those who do not slavishly and blindly submit, and even some of them will suffer for all eternity. Since Jesus promises eternal suffering to some, we can’t provide examples of any entity doing more evil to any one individual than what these believers promise their god Jesus will do to some. Revelations 20:

11 Then I saw a great white throne and him who sat upon it; from his presence earth and sky fled away, and no place was found for them. 12 And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Also another book was opened, which is the book of life. And the dead were judged by what was written in the books, by what they had done. 13 And the sea gave up the dead in it, Death and Hades gave up the dead in them, and all were judged by what they had done. 14 Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire; 15 and if any one’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.

The pleasure of hating, like a poisonous mineral, eats into the heart of religion, and turns it to rankling spleen and bigotry; it makes patriotism an excuse for carrying fire, pestilence, and famine into other lands: it leaves to virtue nothing but the spirit of censoriousness, and a narrow, jealous, inquisitorial watchfulness over the actions and motives of others. What have the different sects, creeds, doctrines in religion been but so many pretexts set up for men to wrangle, to quarrel, to tear one another in pieces about, like a target as a mark to shoot at? Does any one suppose that the love of country in an Englishman implies any friendly feeling or disposition to serve another bearing the same name? No, it means only hatred to the French or the inhabitants of any other country that we happen to be at war with for the time. Does the love of virtue denote any wish to discover or amend our own faults? No, but it atones for an obstinate adherence to our own vices by the most virulent intolerance to human frailties. This principle is of a most universal application. It extends to good as well as evil: if it makes us hate folly, it makes us no less dissatisfied with distinguished merit. If it inclines us to resent the wrongs of others, it impels us to be as impatient of their prosperity. We revenge injuries: we repay benefits with ingratitude. Even our strongest partialities and likings soon take this turn. “That which was luscious as locusts, anon becomes bitter as coloquintida;” and love and friendship melt in their own fires. We hate old friends: we hate old books: we hate old opinions; and at last we come to hate ourselves.
William Hazlitt, On the Pleasure of Hating, 1823.

While there’s nothing wrong with hating evil, for many people hate seems to be a kind of drug.. Some media personalities make a career out of spewing hate at every opportunity, and millions tune in or read them, for that bracing rush of blood and the sweet sweet taste of self-righteousness. I admit, I can see the appeal, but I’m on my guard against going down that path, because I dislike what it does to me.

Seems the jeebus droolers are being so reduced in number and distilled down to the dumbest of the dumb.
So thick and mentally ponderous they need to have the tenets of their cult spelt out in simple uncomplicated straight forward sentences.

Hate = Good
Intolerance = Godly

This could not be contemplated even a decade ago, because way back then, Xtianity could boast of some members that had an IQ a tad higher then their belt buckle, to keep those precious few on board then ‘Love’ was the code word and the name of the bigotry and no mention of Intolerance or hatred was required, it was there all the same just under the surface and was the default but there was a uneasiness in its presence…but ‘Love’…well that is all right then!
Unfortunately the average fundy of the day is confused by this ‘love’ thing and understands a whole lot better when the bigotries and ignorances they actually feel are called for what they are…now that makes sense and they can happily relate!

Barton is just laying it on the line for hard of thinking by admitting it is fine to hate and be intolerant…after all where is fundy land without their favourite weapons.

A constant theme in the bible is hate for the other tribes, the Ammonites, Canaanites, Moabites, Edomites, Aramites, Assyrians, Babylonians, Greeks, Samaritans, Philistines, Romans. etc.. If they ever met another people they got along with, I don’t remember it.

How about the Persians especially under King Cyrus the Great who defeated the Babylonians and ended the Babylonian Capitivity period allowing the Jewish people to return home and rebuild / build the second temple in Jerusalem circa 540-530 BC?

They seemed to get along pretty well.

Also there’s a whole category of righteous gentiles – those who have aided the jews over time and helped them escape persecution and also those who live well among Jews and inside jewish states as strangers and get along okay with them too. Plus the US and Australians among others have very good relations and are closely allied to the Jewish nation of Israel.

Proverbs 4:5-15
5 Get wisdom, get understanding: forget it not; neither decline from the words of my mouth.
6 Forsake her not, and she shall preserve thee: love her, and she shall keep thee.
7 Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding.
8 Exalt her, and she shall promote thee: she shall bring thee to honour, when thou dost embrace her.
9 She shall give to thine head an ornament of grace: a crown of glory shall she deliver to thee.
10 Hear, O my son, and receive my sayings; and the years of thy life shall be many.
11 I have taught thee in the way of wisdom; I have led thee in right paths.
12 When thou goest, thy steps shall not be straitened; and when thou runnest, thou shalt not stumble.13 Take fast hold of instruction; let her not go: keep her; for she is thy life.
14 Enter not into the path of the wicked, and go not in the way of evil men.
15 Avoid it, pass not by it, turn from it, and pass away.

Bible Fail.

Dingo.
——–
Of course he meant:

Proverbs 8:10-19
10 Receive my instruction, and not silver; and knowledge rather than choice gold.
11 For wisdom is better than rubies; and all the things that may be desired are not to be compared to it.
12 I wisdom dwell with prudence, and find out knowledge of witty inventions.13 The fear of the Lord is to hate evil: pride, and arrogancy, and the evil way, and the froward mouth, do I hate.
14 Counsel is mine, and sound wisdom: I am understanding; I have strength.
15 By me kings reign, and princes decree justice
16 By me princes rule, and nobles, even all the judges of the earth.
17 I love them that love me; and those that seek me early shall find me.
18 Riches and honour are with me; yea, durable riches and righteousness.
19 My fruit is better than gold, yea, than fine gold; and my revenue than choice silver..

Also there’s a whole category of righteous gentiles – those who have aided the jews over time and helped them escape persecution and also those who live well among Jews and inside jewish states as strangers and get along okay with them too. Plus the US and Australians among others have very good relations and are closely allied to the Jewish nation of Israel.

I missed where in the bible, the USA and Australia are mentioned. That must be in one of Barton’s other books.

The Persians might work though. They let the Jews go back from Babylon.

“How about the Persians especially under King Cyrus the Great who defeated the Babylonians and ended the Babylonian Capitivity period allowing the Jewish people to return home and rebuild / build the second temple in Jerusalem circa 540-530 BC?”*

And now the Israelis wanna bomb the crap outta their descendants. Talk about fair-weather friends,,,
No wonder even their own god hates them.

:) Dingo
———-
* TFoAW notes:
“Cyrus was praised in the Tanakh (Isaiah 45:1-6 and Ezra 1:1-11) for the freeing of slaves, humanitarian equality and costly reparations he made. However, there was Jewish criticism of him after he was lied to by the Cuthites, who wanted to halt the building of the Second Temple. They accused the Jews of conspiring to rebel, so Cyrus in turn stopped the construction, which would not be completed until 515 BC, during the reign of Darius I.[90][91] According to the Bible it was King Artaxerxes who was convinced to stop the construction of the temple in Jerusalem. (Ezra 4:7-24)”. and
“”His treatment of the Jews during their exile in Babylon after Nebuchadnezzar II destroyed Jerusalem is reported in the Bible. The Jewish Bible’s Ketuvim ends in Second Chronicles with the decree of Cyrus, which returned the exiles to the Promised Land from Babylon along with a commission to rebuild the temple.
….
The historical nature of this decree has been challenged. Professor Lester L Grabbe argues that there was no decree but that there was a policy that allowed exiles to return to their homelands and rebuild their temples. He also argues that the archaeology suggests that the return was a “trickle”, taking place over perhaps decades, resulting in a maximum population of perhaps 30,000.[93] Philip R. Davies called the authenticity of the decree “dubious”, citing Grabbe and adding that J. Briend argued against “the authenticity of Ezra 1.1-4 is J. Briend, in a paper given at the Institut Catholique de Paris on 15 December 1993, who denies that it resembles the form of an official document but reflects rather biblical prophetic idiom.”[94] Mary Joan Winn Leith believes that the decree in Ezra might be authentic and along with the Cylinder that Cyrus, like earlier rules, was through these trying to gain support from those who might be strategically important, particularly those close to Egypt which he wished to conquer. He also wrote that “appeals to Marduk in the cylinder and to Yahweh in the biblical decree demonstrate the Persian tendency to co-opt local religious and political traditions in the interest of imperial control.”

and please don’t give me this mealy-mouthed, new agey “I don’t hate anyone, I just strongly dislike them” — as though that says anything meaningful at all

Of course it’s meaningfull: it is after all, the expression of enormous hubris: “I am so much smarter than the rabble: unlike them, I am above petty feelings like hate: look upon my superior intellect, ye mammals, and despair“

Not in that form, IMHO. Most metal acts aren’t serious enough, usually they’re sarcasm or deliberate exaggeration.

Well, Heathen wrote a song called “Mercy Is No Virtue,” and one of Death’s best songs is “To Forgive Is to Suffer.” The former is progressive thrash, the latter was progressive death metal (at that point – they helped invent death metal in the first place). I’d say a brutal or technical death metal band would certainly write a song named that, and take it completely seriously. It’s not like all metal bands are Anthrax.

And let’s not even talk about National Socialist black metal (yes, it unfortunately exists).

“I mean hating Nazis, that’s a good thing. And people say “well, you hate their philosophy, you don’t hate the people.”

Davey, buddy, how are folks gonna take you seriously if you make alla this noise about nazis and don’t even mention ILLINOIS! Ferfucksake!! Dave, do you have the courage and commitment to run a bunch of Illinazis off the bridge or no?

Not in the Torah / Talmud / Mishnah by name specifically no – but the idea of “righteous gentiles” ie. allies and good non-Jews living harmoniously with Jewish people – that is in there somewhere isn’t it?

@50. dingojack :

“How about the Persians especially under King Cyrus the Great who defeated the Babylonians and ended the Babylonian Capitivity period allowing the Jewish people to return home and rebuild / build the second temple in Jerusalem circa 540-530 BC?”*

And now the Israelis wanna bomb the crap outta their descendants. Talk about fair-weather friends,,,

‘Bout that claim :

1. Two thousand years later and a very different culture and peoples indeed. Today’s Iranians are very distant descendants of the Persians indeed.

2. You forgot to note its more a case of vice-versa – Iran is now the one talking of exterminating the Jewish state.

3. Relevance? The original question is still answered by this example of how things used to be and were record in the Old Testament even if international relations have changed quite a bit in the millennia since.